The total cost of disorders of the brain was estimated at €798 billion in 2010. 4 key findings →
Design: systematic review Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research
28,580 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Eight candidate predictors entered the prediction model: bulbar versus non-bulbar onset (univariable hazard ratio [HR] 1·71, 95% CI 1·63-1·79), age at onset (1·03, 1·03-1·03), definite versus probable or possible ALS (1·47, 1·39-1·55), diagnostic delay (0·52, 0·51-0·53), forced vital capacity (HR 0·99, 0·99-0·99), progression rate (6·33, 5·92-6·76), frontotemporal dementia (1·34, 1·20-1·50), and presence of a C9orf72 repeat expansion (1·45, 1·31-1·61), all p Interpretation We have developed an externally validated model to predict survival without tracheostomy and non-invasive ventilation for more than 23 h per day in European patients with ALS. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,936 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A polygenic score (PGS) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) was derived recently from data on genome-wide significant loci in European ancestry populations. 4 key findings →
Design: cohort Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
59/100
AV45 PET scans were performed in 271 individuals and preliminary results showed that 38.0% had a cortical SUVR > 1.17, which gave an indication of significant brain amyloïd deposit. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,680 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
1680 participants were randomized over the recruitment period in MAPT study. 1 key finding →
Participants: 1,680 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Researchers conducted a trial to test the effect of omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation and a multidomain intervention, alone or in combination, compared with placebo, on cognitive decline in elderly adults with memory complaints. 3 key findings →
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
Long-term use of urate-lowering therapies (ULT) may reduce inflammaging and thus prevent cognitive decline during aging. 3 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 51 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 5 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The huge costs of dementia worldwide place enormous strains on care systems and families alike.
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
TDP-43 (TAR-DNA binding protein) aggregates in neuronal inclusions in motoneuron disease (MND), as well as in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and FTLD associated with MND (FTLD-MND). 2 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
The MAPT Study is the first preventive trial involving multidomain interventions. 2 key findings →
Participants: 300 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
There is growing evidence that cognitive decline can be affected by both nutritional aspects and inflammation. 3 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 116 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Although typical forms of Alzheimer disease (AD) and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) are clinically distinguishable, atypical AD phenotypes may pose a diagnostic challenge. 4 key findings →
Participants: 82 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
A total of 114 older adults (mean age 73 ± 10 years, 51% female) and their primary caregivers (mean age 49 ± 16 years, 70% female) participated, of whom 73 were recruited from health facilities and 41 from rural communities. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 114 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Where “Free full text” comes from
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read
How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
- Journal tier up to 10 pts
- Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
- Study design up to 12 pts
- Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
- Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
- How recent up to 5 pts
- Sample size up to 4 pts
- Effect reported up to 3 pts
- Studied in people up to 3 pts
- Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
- Times cited up to 7 pts
- Citations per year up to 5 pts
- Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
- Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
- Still being cited up to 4 pts
- Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
- Institution's track record up to 3 pts
- Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
- Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
- Free to read up to 2 pts
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 28,580 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
What this library is — and isn't
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 28,580 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (62.2% of the library) and OpenAlex (17.8%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,034 records (3.6% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.
See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →